16Jul07 is day one of LCpl Tatum’s Article 32 investigation. Given the success that Cpl Sharratt had with LtCol Ware as his Article 32 investigator, it appears that LCpl Tatum’s lawyers are using a similar tactic:
- Use of deadly force was the proper response
- LCpl Tatum was following the orders of his superiors
- In retrospect LCpl Tatum wishes civilian would not have been killed, but he stands by his decisions on that day
- LCpl Tatum did what he was trained to do and now he is being charged with murder
The prosecution has its own theme: accountability. The trial counsel, LtCol Atterbury, stated “Marines have to be held accountable.” LtCol Atterbury presented rules-of-engagement cards, that were supposed to be distributed to LCpl Tatum’s unit. The cards require a Marine to positively identify targets as having hostile intent before using deadly force. The prosecution also put on SSgt Laughner who testified under a grant of immunity. SSgt Laghner testified that he did not find evidence of insurgents at the two homes, but he did find shell casings from AK-47 rifles.
The Article 32 will continue for a number of days, to guess about five. The prosecution will try to overcome the difficulties it had during Cpl Sharratt’s case, wherein LtCol Ware criticized the prosecution for failing to have a theory and questioning the veracity of the Iraqis who called were called as witnesses.
yojoe
Filed under: Crime, Haditha, LCpl Stephen Tatum, Military Law, SSgt Frank Wuterich
[...] Today we should hear about the AK-47 shells casings found at homes, and an explanation from Special Agent Marshall about why NCIS lost the suitcase containing [...]
[...] Today we should hear about the AK-47 shells casings found at homes, and an explanation from Special Agent Marshall about why NCIS lost the suitcase containing [...]
IN YESTERDAY’S ASTRONOMY “PICTURE OF THE DAY”, IT CLEARLY ILLUSTRATES HOW VISUAL EVIDENCE, ABSENT ALL OTHER, CAN LEAD TO ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS. PHOTOGRAPHS SHOULD NOT BE ENOUGH EVIDIENCE TO SHOW THAT THE VICTIM WS ILLEGALLY KILLED.
SECONDLY, AS I UNDERSTAND ROE, ONCE HOSTILE INTENT IS CONCLUDED, ONE IS AUTHORIZED AS WELL AS OBLIGATED TO USE DEADLY FORCE TO DESTROY THE ENEMY. IF, IN THE INTERVENING TIME BEFORE ENGAGEMENT, NON-HOSTILE INTENT IS REALIZED, THEN ALL ACTIONS REGARDNG THE ENGAGEMENT MUST BE TERMINATED. THEORY ASIDE, WHEN SPLIT SECOND DECISIONS HAVE TO BE MADE, ONCE YOU COMMIT TO DEADLY FORCE, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO REEVLAUATE INTENTIONS TO NON-HOSTILE INTENT AND, THEN, STOP THE ENGAGEMENT.
CAN’T ARGUE THAT ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT MAY HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE “GET GO” AND COMPOUNDED BY “THE FOG OF WAR”, BUT ERRORS IN JUDGMENT DO NOT CONSTITUTE MURDER IN MY OPINION.